Snowboard wrist guards-use, efficacy, and design: a systematic review.
|Abstract:||The popularity of snowboarding has brought awareness to injuries sustained during the sport. Wrist injuries are among the most common injuries, and there is an interest in using protective equipment to prevent these injuries. The purpose of this study was to review the literature on wrist guard use, injury prevention, the biomechanical effects of wrist guards, and the various types of wrist guards commercially available for consumers. A literature search was done using MEDLINE[R] Ovid (1950 to January 2009), MEDLINE[R] PubMed[R] (1966 to January 2009), and EMBASE[R] (1980 to January 2009) for studies on snowboard injuries and wrist guards. References from the studies found were also reviewed. Two randomized controlled studies (Level I), one meta-analysis (Level II), eight prospective case control studies (Level II), one cross-sectional study, and four biomechanical-cadaveric studies were found from the literature search. Based on the review of this literature, wrist injuries are among the most common injury type, and wrist guard use may provide a protective effect in preventing them. There is no consensus as to what type or design of wrist guard is the most effective and which wrist guards are available for use by the consumer.|
Snowboards and snowboarding
Lee, Steve K.
|Publication:||Name: Bulletin of the NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases Publisher: J. Michael Ryan Publishing Co. Audience: Academic Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Health Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2011 J. Michael Ryan Publishing Co. ISSN: 1936-9719|
|Issue:||Date: April, 2011 Source Volume: 69 Source Issue: 2|
Snowboarding is one of the fastest growing winter sports, with 2008
statistics showing the number of snowboarders to be 5.9 million,
compared with 6.5 million alpine skiers, in North America. (1) The
rising popularity of extreme sports and high profile snowboard events,
such as the Olympics, X-Games, and the U.S. Open, has helped to catapult
participation of this winter sport. With the increase in popularity, a
number of articles in the recent literature have tackled the topic of
snowboard-related injuries. Various types of studies, including
prospective-retrospective case series, case reports, and case controls
on snowboarding injuries, can now be found in the literature. Many
investigations have found that snowboarders sustain a high number of
upper extremity injuries, especially when compared with skiers. (2-6)
Matsumoto and colleagues (5) found that among injured snowboarders, 40%
sustained upper extremity injuries, while only 19% of skiers did (p <
0.0001). Multiple other studies have found that wrist injuries, in
particular, are prevalent upper extremity injuries. (4,5,7-20) The
population most at risk for this type of injury is beginner
snowboarders. (2,8,21,22) The increased risk of wrist injury can be
attributed to the typical mechanism of a fall when riding a snowboard.
The equipment used in snowboarding consists of the rider strapping in
both feet to a board with bindings that do not release during a fall.
When the rider loses balance, instinctively they fall with their arm
stretched out, putting the participant at increased risk of sustaining
an upper extremity injury.
Protective equipment may play an important role in the prevention of wrist injuries. Specifically, wrist guard use has been advocated by authors of multiple papers. (2,13,23,24) Russell and coworkers (25) did a meta-analysis on this topic, but only evaluated the reduction of wrist injuries with wrist guard use. The purpose of this study is to review the literature on wrist guard use, injury prevention, the biomechanical effects of wrist guards, and the specific design of wrist guards.
Materials and Methods
A literature search was conducted using the computerized literature databases MEDLINE[R] Ovid (1950 to January 2009), MEDLINE[R] PubMed[R] (1966 to January 2009), and EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database) (1980 to January 2009). Databases were searched using the keywords "snowboard," "wrist injuries," "upper extremity," "wrist splint," "wrist brace," and "wrist guard." References from the articles were also reviewed for inclusion.
After reviewing all of the articles obtained through the searches, studies were included if they involved snowboard data collection on wrist guard use, injuries sustained due to wrist guard use, evaluated injury prevention-efficacy of wrist guards in snowboarding, cadaveric, or biomechanical studies on wrist guards.
Sixteen studies were found in the literature search that included information on wrist guards with the above mentioned inclusion criteria.
Prospective Randomized Controlled Trials (Level I)
Two randomized controlled trials (RCT) were found in the literature search (Table 1). Machold and associates (24) conducted a study of 721 Austrian students (mean age, 15 years) who snowboarded as part of their winter sport vacation; 342 participants were randomly assigned to the protected group, and 379 were assigned to the control, or unprotected, group. The protected group wore a wrist guard that was designed specifically for the study; it was palmar in location, curved at the area of the carpus, the distal end did not exceed the proximal flexion crease of the hand, and it had an extension of the palmar support to the forearm. Injuries were classified according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (minor: contusion or sprain, or both; moderate: nondisplaced fracture or epiphysiolysis of radius; severe: displaced fracture). The incidence of severe wrist injury was 1 of 342 snowboarders (0.0029) in the protected group and 9 of 379 snowboarders (0.023) in the unprotected group. There was a decrease in risk by a factor of 0.13 using the wrist guard (p = 0.05).
Ronning and colleagues (22) studied 5029 snowboarders at the Hafjell Alpine Center in Norway. They randomized 2515 to the braced group and 2514 to the control group. The randomly assigned braced group used a D-ring wrist brace with an aluminum splint on the volar side (Smith & Nephew, Nesbru, Norway). Both groups were evaluated for an end point of wrist fracture or sprain; 29 (1.2%) of the unprotected group sustained wrist injuries, compared with 8 (0.3%) of the protected group (p = 0.001).
Meta-Analysis (Level II)
One study was found that reviewed the literature to examine the effectiveness of wrist guards in preventing wrist injuries in snowboarders (Table 2). Russell and coworkers (25) found six studies that demonstrated a comparison between wrist guard snowboarders and unguarded snowboarders and the wrist injuries sustained. They concluded that based on the literature search, wrist guard use did significantly reduce the risk of wrist injury. The investigators did note that due to the various wrist guards that were used in all of the included studies, no particular wrist guard was deemed optimal to reduce the number of wrist injuries.
Prospective Case Control Studies (Level III)
Eight prospective case studies were found in the literature search (Table 3). A case control study was performed in 20 large ski areas in Quebec, Canada by Hagel and associates. (23) The case group consisted of 1066 persons, who sustained an upper extremity injury. The control group included 970 injured snowboarders, who sustained injury to a body region other than the upper extremity. The prevalence of wrist guard use among snowboarders with upper extremity injuries was 1.6%, compared with 3.9% in snowboarders with other injuries. There was no mention of the brand of wrist guards used by participants in the study. Upper extremity injuries included bruises, dislocations, fractures, and sprains. It was found that wrist guard use reduced hand-forearm wrist injury by 85% (95% CI, 0.05-0.45). Injuries to the elbow-shoulder were found to be increased two-fold, but were not significant (95% CI, 0.70-7.8; p = 0.17).
Upper extremity snowboard injuries were also studied by Idzikowski and colleagues (13) in Colorado. The study involved 10 seasons (1998-1998) and included injured snowboarders who sought medical treatment in 47 medical facilities near Colorado ski resorts. The study consisted of 7430 snowboard injuries and 3107 non-injured snowboarders as a control group. The characteristics of the control group were obtained from the 1995 and 1996 Ski Industries of America Snowboard Survey and the 1994 Canadian Ski Council National Snowboard Survey; 5.6% of the injured group wore wrist guards (no specific brands listed). The control group did not have information related to the use of wrist guards. Wrist injuries were defined as fractures, dislocations, sprains, and contusions; 21.6% of all injuries were wrist injuries. Injured snowboarders without wrist guards were twice as likely to be seen for a wrist injury as those who wore them (p = 0.0001).
First-day injuries among skiers, snowboarders, and skiboarders in Scotland were assessed by Langran and Selvaraj. (26) Injured participants at Cairngorm, Glenshee, and Nevis Range ski areas, during three winter seasons (1999-2002), who were evaluated by the ski patrol or those who presented to Aviemore Medical Practice, were included in the study; some subjects were seen by both. The data included 2124 injuries and 1782 control participants. Demographics and injury information data were obtained. Control data was collected by face-to-face interviews on a variety of days and times. In the injured population, no wrist guards were worn among the first-day participants, while 1.3% of all injured snowboarders wore them (p = 0.305). There was no mention of the specific types of wrist guards that were worn. Injuries sustained by the participants were categorized as fracture, laceration, sprain, dislocation, subluxation, or bruising. The most common injury location among snowboarders was the wrist, 33.3% among first-day participants and 21.2% among all others.
Machold and associates (15) also performed a controlled case study with a similar population of Austrian students as the prospective randomized controlled trial (24) mentioned in the previous section. A total of 2579 snowboarders were included in the study during one snowboard season 19961997; 152 injured snowboarders were evaluated. A total of 39% (999 snowboarders) wore wrist guards. There was mention of multiple gloves, with integrated wrist guards available on the market, but none were specified in association with injuries. Wrist injuries were defined as minor (sprains-contusions), moderate (fractures of the radius), and severe (displaced fractures of the radius); 32.2% of all injured snowboarders had a lower arm-wrist injury. Lack of use of wrist guards increased risk of injury by 2.78 (95% CI, 1.05-7.35; p = 0.039).
Made and Elmqvist (16) conducted a 10-year study of snowboard injuries in Lapland, Sweden, at Tarnaby and Hemavan ski resorts; 568 injured snowboarders were included in the study. An injury form that included demographics, circumstances surrounding the injury, previous injuries, and snow conditions was completed by the patients and the physician. The control group was based on interviews of uninjured participants on the slopes, and the same form was used to collect data. Eleven percent of the injured snowboarders wore some kind of wrist guard (no specific brand mentioned). Wrist guard use was more prevalent in the advanced group (19%), compared with the intermediate group (10%) and the beginner group (7%). Injuries were defined as fractures, contusions, sprains, dislocations, lacerations, and other. Thirty-five percent of all snowboard injuries involved the lower arm-wrist.
Matsumoto and coworkers (5) conducted a prospective comparative study of upper extremity injuries sustained between 1995-2000 and presented to Sumi Memorial Hospital, the only emergency hospital covering more than 10 skiing facilities; 6837 snowboard injuries were included in the study, compared to 3 million snowboard participants in the control group (based on number of passes sold). All injured participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire, including use of protective equipment; however, there was no mention about which types of equipment were used (i.e., wrist guard, helmet, etc.). Among the participants who had upper extremity injuries, protective equipment was worn by 13%, as compared to 87% without. The most common location of snowboard injury was the upper extremity, 40%, compared with 19% in skiers (p < 0.001). When comparing all the fractures sustained by snowboarders in the upper extremity, 62% were fractures of the wrist.
O'Neill (27) conducted a prospective control trial in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. All included participants were involved in the "Learn to Snowboard" program, where rental equipment, line ticket, and a 2-hour lesson was part of the package. This study was conducted during two winter seasons (1998-2000). The total number of participants was 2355, of which 551 were in the wrist guard group, and 1804 were in the control group. All participants were offered a wrist guard (Seneca Sports Inc., Milford, Massachusetts), and those who refused were put in the control group. Wrist injuries included sprains (soft tissue swelling in the area of wrist, with pain significant enough to seek medical attention) and fractures; 2.2% of the unprotected group sustained wrist injuries, compared with 0% in the group with wrist guards (p < 0.001).
Slanely and associates (28) did a case control study from Mount Buller Medical Center, Victoria, Australia, during one snowboard season; 119 injured snowboarders seen at the clinic with a fractured wrist were included. The control group included the people wearing snowboard boots in the clinic as patients or as companions. Injured snowboarders with wrist fractures numbered 119 and the control group 375; 15% of snowboarders with wrist fractures wore wrist guards, whereas 20% of the control group wore wrist guards. Use of wrist guards demonstrated a 42% reduction in wrist fracture but was not statistically significant (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.32-1.04; p = 0.07). No particular wrist guard brand was mentioned in the study. Twenty-four percent of all the snowboarders included in the study acquired wrist fractures.
Kroncke and colleagues (29) surveyed the use of protective equipment among adolescent in-line skaters, skateboarders, and snowboarders in central southeast Wisconsin, from August 2003 to March 2004. A total of 226 of the 333 surveyed were adolescent snowboarders (Table 2); 16.7% of the snowboarders stated that they used wrist guards. Participants were not asked about specific brands of wrist guards used. Parents were the most common reason for the use of any protective equipment (35%), while other factors, such as rule-requirement (23%), friends (20%), sibling (5%), coach (4%), celebrity-advertisement (3%), and physician (3%) were also mentioned.
Biomechanical and Cadaveric Studies
Four biomechanical studies were found in the literature search relevant to the evaluation of wrist guards as protective apparel (Table 4). Greenwald and coworkers (30) performed a cadaveric study with wrist guards. Twelve arms from six fresh-frozen cadavers were used. Each specimen was mounted to a drop fixture (guillotine-type track), which was positioned above a force platform (AMTI Corp., Watertown, Massachusetts). The arms were randomly assigned to a wrist guard constructed of Kydex[R] (Kleerdex Co. LLC, Mount Laurel, New Jersey), with a ventral splint from the metacarpophalangeal joint to the mid-forearm and strapped with three Velcro[R] straps (Velcro[R] USA, Inc., Manchester, New Hampshire). The specimen was dropped from a 40 cm height onto the force platform. The braced group had a higher impulse (change in momentum) applied by the force platform to the drop complex before failure (p < 0.01). It was noted that the greatest reduction in momentum was during the first two loading phases in the vertical force platform. This suggests that the brace was not useful in reducing momentum after a certain amount of force. The study concluded that the wrist guard used may have some prophylactic effect in low energy falls, but not at higher loads.
A biomechanical human subject study was performed by Hwang and associates. (31) The experiment consisted of 30 young adults; each subject had two trials, randomized with and without wrist guards. The wrist guards used in the study were Bone Shieldz (Litchfield, Illinois). A landing pad with a force transducer was mounted on an inclined wall (20[degrees] from vertical) in front of the subject. A cable was used to hold the subject leaning 10[degrees] forward or backward and was randomly released. The subject stopped the fall with outstretched arms onto the landing pad, from which impact and braking forces were measured. It was found that wrist guard use had a significant change in only the impact force parameters of the backward fall. The investigators concluded that the wrist guards did not provide statistically significant reduction of maximum force transmission.
Kim and colleagues (32) designed a biomechanical study with a mechanical surrogate. The surrogate was the forearm hand complex of an enhanced airbag interaction (EAI) arm. The surrogate was tested under five different conditions: 1. bare, 2. UltraWheels wrist guard (First Team Sports, Inc., Anoka, Minnesota); 3. Sorbothane glove (ER-502, Ergotech Canada Inc, Ontario, Canada); 4. air cell simple pneumatic spring mechanism harvested from a pneumatic armband (Aircast Inc., Summit, New Jersey); and 5. an "air bladder" (Dielectrics Industries Inc., Chicopee, Massachusetts). The force was measured with a six-channel forearm load cell and a commercial force plate (Type 4600-10, Bertec, Columbus, Ohio). The surrogate was mounted on a guillotine-style platform and was dropped in full extension at four different heights (13 cm, 25 cm, 38 cm, 51 cm) onto an aluminum block (ensuring palmar impact) and force plate. It has been reported that the force for fracture of the radius is 2245 N. The peak impact forces were smaller in all of the padded conditions, compared with the bare hand condition (p < 0.05). The air bladder maintained forces below the peak of 2245 N at all falling heights, while the rest of the protective devices became ineffective at various heights. The wrist guard became ineffective at a height of 51 cm. The investigators concluded that wrist guards may be effective, but may not be protective in all the various types of impacts in different sporting activities. It was criticized that common wrist guards are made of rigid splints and do not absorb and store energy sufficiently. They suggested a wrist guard design with a pneumatic spring mechanism and more padding to provide more shock absorption and increase fracture strength.
A cadaveric study was done by Staebler and coworkers (33) to determine the effect of wrist guards on bone strain. Three pair of fresh-frozen cadaveric upper extremities were used. Each specimen was tested unguarded and with two different wrist guards. Guard A was the Bone Shieldz wrist guard, which had a wraparound design, with the volar splint elevated off of the wrist. Guard B was the Rollerblades wrist guard (Minnetonka, Minnesota) with a slip-on design, where the volar plate was not elevated. A servohydraulic materials testing machine was used to apply load onto the specimen at the volar pole of the scaphoid and the load surface (volar angle where the guard would be in contact with the surface). Strain gauges were attached to the distal radius (both volar and dorsal), the volar radial shaft, and the dorsal distal ulna. With wrist guard A, the strain in the dorsal distal radius was 46% less than with the unguarded specimen, compared with 23% lower with wrist guard B (p < 0.05). The strain on the volar distal radius was 80% lower with wrist guard A (p < 0.05) versus 30% lower with wrist guard B (not statistically significant). Only wrist guard A showed a decreased strain in the dorsal and volar midshaft (61% and 44% respectively).
The growing popularity of snowboarding as a winter sport has brought attention to the injuries that can be sustained with participation. All of the studies found in the literature recognize that wrist injury is one of the most common injuries among snowboarders. The literature search demonstrated a large number of studies that advocate the use of wrist guards to prevent lower arm-wrist injuries.
Several studies found that beginners injured their wrists more often than higher-level snowboarders. This can be explained by the fact that beginners are more likely to fall, especially during the early part of their snowboard participation. First-day participants were noted to have a higher prevalence of wrist injuries when compared with all other snowboarders. (26) Without proper education on how to fall, beginners will instinctively fall with their arms outstretched. This mechanism is classic for distal forearm-wrist injury. As a snowboarder becomes more advanced in the sport, he or she is less likely to fall as often and also more likely to attempt, as part of advancing their skills, acrobatic or aerial maneuvers, or both, that may put them at risk for other injuries.
Use of protective equipment for the wrist is a method for prevention of injury. The most compelling evidence is found in the two randomized control trials that studied the protective effect of wrist guards. Both demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in wrist guard injury in the guarded group, compared with the unguarded.
Our search found numerous studies that looked at the effect of wrist guards; however, there was no consensus on which particular type of wrist guard would be most effective. The majority of the studies that we reviewed did not mention a brand name or a description of the type of wrist guard that was used by participants. Given the wide array of wrist guards on the market, it is important to know the type and material of a wrist guard when trying to study the effectiveness of a product.
There were also several studies that looked at the biomechanical aspect of wrist guards. Each study used a different setup to simulate a fall and measure the force on the lower arm. Live human subjects, cadavers, and an EAI arm were used to measure the forces occurring with falls. The simulation of falls can only be generalized, because it is very difficult to imitate the environmental factors seen on a snow covered mountain, and the precise orientation of the forearm-wrist when a subject falls. There were also various wrist guards-materials used in all these studies, with no mention of the availability of these products to the consumer.
The evidence of the protective effects of wrist guards will not be effective in preventing injuries unless snowboarding participants use them during sport activity. Many of the studies found low usage of wrist guards by participants. Some issues to consider are the aesthetics of the wrist guards, social acceptance, fit of the wrist guard, and availability.
There is also concern for injuries sustained due to the wrist guard itself. Cheng and associates did a case report on "splint top" fractures sustained by rollerbladers wearing wrist guards. All cases had fractures seen near the proximal border of the wrist splints. There were no studies found in our literature search about cases with fractures due to snowboard wrist guards. (34)
This study provided multiple literature findings that support the high prevalence of wrist injuries in the snowboard population, as well as the protective effect of wrist guard use. It is important to understand that these studies did not provide a consensus on the effectiveness of any one particular wrist guard type. Further research is required to determine the degree of effectiveness of wrist guards that are currently available to consumers.
None of the authors have a financial or proprietary interest in the subject matter or materials discussed, including, but not limited to, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, and paid expert testimony.
(1.) Snowsports America SIndustries America (SIA). Available at: http://www.snowsports.org/SuppliersServiceProviders/ Research/SnowSportsFactSheet. Accessed July 5, 2010.
(2.) Abu-Laban R. Snowboarding injuries: an analysis and comparison with alpine skiing injuries. CMAJ. 1991;145(9):1097 103.
(3.) Dohin B, Kohler R. [Skiing and snowboarding trauma in children: epidemiology, physiopathology, prevention and main injuries]. Arch Pediatr. 2008;15(11):1717-23. [French].
(4.) Hagel B, Goulet C, Platt R, Pless I. Injuries among skiers and snowboarders in Quebec. Epidemiology. 2004;15(3):279-86.
(5.) Matsumoto K, Miyamoto K, Sumi H, et al. Upper extremity injuries in snowboarding and skiing: a comparative study. Clin J Sport Med. 2002;12(6):354-9.
(6.) Sakamoto Y, Sakuraba K. Snowboarding and ski boarding injuries in Niigata, Japan. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(5):943 8.
(7.) Calle S, Evans J. Snowboarding trauma. J Pediatr Surg. 1995;30(6):791-4.
(8.) Chow T, Corbett S, Farstad D. Spectrum of injuries from snowboarding. J Trauma. 1996;41(2):321-5.
(9.) Davidson T, Laliotis A. Snowboarding injuries, a four-year study with comparison with alpine ski injuries. West J Med. 1996;164(3):231-7.
(10.) Dohjima T, Sumi Y, Ohno T, et al. The dangers of snowboarding: a 9-year prospective comparison of snowboarding and skiing injuries. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72(6):657-60.
(11.) Drkulec J, Letts M. Snowboarding injuries in children. Can J Surg. 2001;44(6):435-9.
(12.) Hagel B, Meeuwisse W, Mohtadi N, Fick G. Skiing and snowboarding injuries in the children and adolescents of Southern Alberta. Clin J Sport Med. 1999;9(1):9-17.
(13.) Idzikowski J, Janes P, Abbott P. Upper extremity snowboarding injuries. Ten-year results from the Colorado snowboard injury survey. Am J Sports Med. 28(6):825-32.
(14.) Langran M, Selvaraj S. Snow sports injuries in Scotland: a case-control study. Br J Sports Med. 2002;36(2):135-40.
(15.) Machold W, Kwasny O, Gassler P, et al. Risk of injury through snowboarding. J Trauma. 2000;48(6):1109-14.
(16.) Made C, Elmqvist L. A 10-year study of snowboard injuries in Lapland Sweden. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2004;14(2):128-33.
(17.) O'Neill D, McGlone M. Injury risk in first-time snowboarders versus first-time skiers. Am J Sports Med. 27(1):94-7.
(18.) Janes PC, Abbot P Jr. The Colorado snowboarding injury study: eight year results. In: Johnson RJ (ed): Skiing Trauma and Safety: Twelfth Volume. ASTM STP 1345, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials, 1999, pp. 141-149.
(19.) Sasaki K, Takagi M, Ida H, et al. Severity of upper limb injuries in snowboarding. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1999;119(5 6):292-5.
(20.) Sutherland A, Holmes J, Myers S. Differing injury patterns in snowboarding and alpine skiing. Injury. 1996;27(6):423-5.
(21.) Bladin C, Giddings P, Robinson M. Australian snowboard injury data base study. A four-year prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 21(5):701-4.
(22.) R0nning R, R0nning I, Gerner T, Engebretsen L. The efficacy of wrist protectors in preventing snowboarding injuries. Am J Sports Med. 2001 Sep-Oct;29(5):581-5.
(23.) Hagel B, Pless I, Goulet C. The effect of wrist guard use on upper-extremity injuries in snowboarders. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;162(2):149-56.
(24.) Machold W, Kwasny O, Eisenhardt P, et al. Reduction of severe wrist injuries in snowboarding by an optimized wrist protection device: a prospective randomized trial. J Trauma. 2002;52(3):517-20.
(25.) Russell K, Hagel B, Francescutti LH. The effect of wrist guards on wrist and arm injuries among snowboarders: a systematic review. Clin J Sport Med. 2007;17(2):145-50.
(26.) Langran M, Selvaraj S. Increased injury risk among first-day skiers, snowboarders, and skiboarders. Am J Sports Med. 32(1):96-103.
(27.) O'Neill D. Wrist injuries in guarded versus unguarded first time snowboarders. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003(409):91-5.
(28.) Slaney G, Finn J, Cook A, Weinstein P. Wrist guards and wrist and elbow injury in snowboarders. Med J Aust. 2008;189(7):412.
(29.) Kroncke E, Niedfeldt M, Young C. Use of protective equipment by adolescents in inline skating, skateboarding, and snowboarding. Clin J Sport Med. 2008;18(1):38-43.
(30.) Greenwald R, Janes P, Swanson S, McDonald T. Dynamic impact response of human cadaveric forearms using a wrist brace. Am J Sports Med. 26(6):825-30.
(31.) Hwang I, Kim K, Kaufman K, et al. Biomechanical efficiency of wrist guards as a shock isolator. J Biomech Eng. 2006;128(2):229-34.
(32.) Kim K, Alian A, Morris W, Lee Y. Shock attenuation of various protective devices for prevention of fall-related injuries of the forearm/hand complex. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(4):637-43.
(33.) Staebler M, Moore D, Akelman E, et al. The effect of wrist guards on bone strain in the distal forearm. Am J Sports Med. 27(4):500-6.
(34.) Cheng S, Rajaratnam K, Raskin K, et al. "Splint-top" fracture of the forearm: a description of an in-line skating injury associated with the use of protective wrist splints. J Trauma. 1995;39(6):1194-7.
Suezie Kim, M.D., and Steve K. Lee, M.D.
Suezie Kim, M.D., is a Resident in the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, and Steve K. Lee, M.D., is Associate Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery, New York University School of Medicine, and Associate Chief, Division of Hand Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases, NYU Langone Medical Center, and Co-Chief, Hand Surgery Service, Bellevue Hospital Center, New York, New York.
Correspondence: Suezie Kim, M.D., NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, 301 East 17th Street, Room 1402, New York, NY 10003; firstname.lastname@example.org.
Table 1 Summary of Prospective Randomized Controlled Studies Wrist Guard Study Study Population Design Machold et al. (24) 721 Austrian Wrist guard students, 342 prototype: palmar, protected vs 379 curved at carpus, unprotected distal end did not exceed proximal flexion crease of hand, extension proximally to forearm Ronning et al. (22) 5029 participants D-ring wrist brace at Hafjell Alpine (Smith & Nephew, Center in Norway, Nesbru, Norway), 2515 protected vs aluminum splint on 2514 unprotected volar side Wrist Injury Wrist Injuries Study Definition Sustained in Study Machold et al. (24) Abbreviated Injury Severe wrist injury Scale incidence: 1 of 342 snowboarders --minor injuries: in protected contusions, sprains group, 9 of 379 snowboarders in --moderate injuries: unprotected group fractures of radius --severe injuries: displaced fractures of radius Ronning et al. (22) Wrist sprains and 1.2% unprotected fractures group sustained wrist injury vs 0.3% protected group Study Results Machold et al. (24) --Risk decreased by factor of 0.13 with protector (p = 0.05) --Risk decreased by factor of 0.83 for each half day of accumulated experience Ronning et al. (22) Frequency of wrist injury protected vs unprotected significant (p = 0.001) Table 2 All Other Studies Study Wrist Guard Study Study Type Population Design and Use Russell et Meta-analysis Six studies, N/A al. (25) including randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case control studies Kroncke et Cross sectional 226 --16.7% of al. (29) survey snowboarders snowboarders of the 333 used wrist adolescents guards. surveyed in skate park, ski --No mention lodge, high of wrist guard school, and design lake front in central and southeast Wisconsin Wrist Wrist Injuries Injury Sustained Study Definition in Study Results Russell et N/A N/A --77% decrease in risk of al. (25) wrist injuries with wrist guard use (RR: 0.23, 95% CI, 0.13-0.41) --71% decrease risk of wrist fractures with wrist guard use (RR 0.29, 95% CI, 0.10-0.87) Kroncke et N/A N/A --Parents most common al. (29) reason for use of any protective equipment (35%). --Rule-requirement (23%), friends (20%), sibling (5%), coach (4%), celebrity- advertisement (3%), and physician (3%) Table 3 Summary of Prospective Case Control Studies Study Design Of Wrist Study Population Wrist Guard Use Guard Hagel et al. 1066 injured --1.6% No mention (23) snowboarders vs snowboarders 970 control in with upper 19 of largest extremity ski areas in injuries wore Quebec (one wrist guards season) --3.9% snowboarders with other injuries wore wrist guards Idzkowski et 7430 snowboard 5.6% injured No mention al. (13) injuries vs snowboarders 3107 non- wore wrist injured guards snowboarders at 47 medical facilities near Colorado ski resorts (10 seasons) Langran et 2124 snowboard --No first-day No mention al. (26) injuries vs participants 1782 control at wore wrist three ski areas guards in Scotland Cairngorm, --1.3% of all Glenshee, Nevis other injured Range snowboarders wore wrist guards Machold et 152 injured 39% of all Mention of al. (15) snowboarders vs snowboarders gloves with 2579 controls wore wrist integrated in Austria, guards wrist guards during winter available on sport week from market, but not 86 schools (one specified in season) association with injury Made et 568 snowboard --11% injured No mention al. (16) injuries at snowboarders Tarnaby and wore wrist Hemavan ski guards resorts, Sweden (10 seasons) --19% advanced group vs 10% intermediate group vs 7% in beginner group wore wrist guards Matsumoto 6837 snowboard --16% of all No mention et al. (5) injuries injured presented to snowboarders Sumi Memorial had protective Hospital, equipment serving more than 10 ski --87% injured resorts in snowboarders Okumino area of did not Gifu, Japan, vs 3 million snowboard participants as controls (5 seasons) O'Neill et 2355 N/A In-line skating al. (27) participants in wrist guard by the White Seneca Sports Mountains of Inc. New Hampshire, Learn to Snowboard program, 551 protected vs 1804 unprotected Slaney et 119 injured --15% No mention al. (28) snowboarders snowboarders with wrist with wrist fracture vs 375 fractures wore controls at wrist guards. Mount Buller Medical Centre, --20% control Victoria, snowboarders Australia (one wore wrist season) guards Wrist Injuries Sustained in Wrist Guard Study Study Effectiveness Hagel et al. 26% of all Wrist guard use (23) injured reduced hand- snowboarders forearm wrist had a wrist injury by 85% injury (95% CI, 0.05- 0.45) Idzkowski et 21.6% of all Injured al. (13) snowboard snowboarders injuries were without wrist in the wrist guards were twice as likely to be seen for a wrist injury as those who wore guards (p = 0.0001) Langran et --33.3% first- N/A al. (26) day participants injured wrist --21.2% all other snowboarders sustained wrist injury Machold et 32.2% of all Lack of use of al. (15) injured wrist guards snowboarders increased risk had a lower of injury by arm-wrist 2.78 (95% CI, injury 1.05-7.35, p = 0.039) Made et 35% of all N/A al. (16) snowboard injuries involved wrist, lower arm Matsumoto --40% of all N/A et al. (5) snowboard injuries were upper extremity, compared with 19% in skiing (p < 0.001) --62% of all snowboard fractures in upper extremity were wrist fractures (p < 0.001) O'Neill et --2.2% Frequency of al. (27) unprotected wrist injury group sustained protected vs wrist injury non protected significant (p --0% in < 0.001) protected group Slaney et 24% of Use of wrist al. (28) snowboarders guards included in demonstrated study had a 42% reduction wrist fracture in wrist fracture, though not statistically significant Table 4 Summary of Biomechanical Studies Experimental Study Study Type Subject Wrist Guard Design Greenwald Cadaveric Six pairs --Wrist guard et al. (30) fresh-frozen constructed of Kydex cadaveric (Kleerdex Corp., arms Mount Laurel, New Jersey), with ventral splint from metacarpophalangeal joint to mid- forearm; secured with three Velcro[R] straps (Velcro[R] USA Inc., Manchester, New Hampshire) Hwang et Human 30 Bone Shieldz al. (31) subject participants, (Litchfield, in cable- Illinois) released fall testing set-up Kim et Mechanical Enhanced --Generic brand al. (32) surrogate air bag guard (UltraWheels, interaction First Team Sports arm (EAI) Inc, Anoka, Minn) --Sorbothane glove (Ergotech Canada Inc, Ontario, Ca) --Air cell (Aircast Inc., Summit, NJ) --Air bladder (Dielectrics Industries, Chicopee, Mass) Staebler et Cadaveric Three pairs Guard A: Bone al. (33) fresh-frozen Shieldz (Litchfield, cadaveric Illinois) upper extremities Guard B: Rollerblades (Minnetonka, Minnesota) Design of Simulation of Study Simulation Fall Results Greenwald Drop fixture, Specimen dropped --Increase in et al. (30) with specimen at height of 40 impulse applied secured to cm onto force by force mounting stage; platform platform to fixture placed forearm before over a force failure in platform (AMTI braced group Corp., (p < 0.01). Watertown, Massachusetts) --Wrist guard use may have some prophylactic effect in low energy falls but not at higher loads Hwang et --Landing plate Subject leaned --Only al. (31) mounted on forward or significant inclined wall backward using a change with (20[degrees] control cable; wrist guard use from vertical) on cable was impact force --A force release, subject parameter of transducer used both hands backward fall measured impact to stop fall and braking onto landing --Wrist guards force plate did not provide statistically significant reduction of maximum force transmission Kim et Guillotine style Mechanical --Radius al. (32) platform with a surrogate fracture at 2245 vertical slider- dropped at four N force drop fixture different placed over a heights (13, 25, --All padded commercial force 38, 51 cm) with conditions had plate (Type five different smaller peak 4600-10, Bertec, conditions impact forces Columbus, Ohio), (bare, generic than the bare and forearm load wrist guard, hand (p < 0.05) cell Sorbothane glove, air cell, --Wrist guard air bladder) became ineffective at height of 51 cm Staebler et --Servohydraulic Load applied a --Dorsal distal al. (33) materials volar pole radius strain: testing machine scaphoid and wrist guard A fall contact 46% less than --Bone strain position unguarded, wrist measured in guard B 23% less distal radius, (both p < 0.05) distal ulna, midshaft of --Volar distal radius radius strain: wrist guard A 80% less (p < 0.05), wrist guard B 30% less (not stat signif) --Dorsal midshaft strain: wrist guard A 61% less (p < 0.05), wrist guard B min difference --Volar midshaft strain: wrist guard A 61% less (p < 0.05), wrist guard B min difference
|Gale Copyright:||Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.|